| 查看: 4243 | 回复: 4 | |||||
| 当前主题已经存档。 | |||||
[交流]
各杂志主编关于revise/resubmit/reject的精彩讨论
|
|||||
|
大体意思是一个杂志的主编reject a paper后，没想到作者resubmit了。然后各大期刊的主编关于revise/resubmit/reject的尺度进行了讨论。我想，这对大家投稿是有帮助的。感觉好的话，就来顶一下！ Authors Who Ignore Rejection and Resubmit September 1 to September 5, 2005 Several months ago we rejected a paper after review. The senior author is a stellar researcher in our field who I imagine is rarely rejected. This week the paper has been resubmitted in a revised version, with a covering letter addressing the reviewers' comments. There is no reference to the paper being rejected. We do not believe that it is possible that the author misunderstood that the paper was being rejected-the language of the rejection is very plain. The paper is improved, but the editors feel that we blew our whistle loud and clear the first time. Has anyone experience of this? What did you do? The author has more front than the entrance to Sydney harbour and the hide of a rhinocerous. Simon Chapman Editor, Tobacco Control (http://www.tobaccocontrol.com/) ___________________________ Perhaps Simon's author would prefer to disregard the bad feelings created by the initial rejection and simply proceed with re-review on the assumption that the revised manuscript will be treated as an entirely new submittal, with new reviewers and full editorial work-up in accordance with the journal's usual procedures. Perhaps the author has had experiences with other journals and has assumed Simon's journal would proceed in the same way. Various aspects of peer review process and policies are quite different between journals. Explicit recognition of failure may be unpleasant for some persons. Perhaps this author is simply trying to move ahead with the paper and did not intend for his behavior to be interpreted as a show of defiance or noncompliance. Do the journal's Instructions to Authors state explicitly that rejected manuscripts will not be reconsidered under any circumstances? It may not be an issue of subterfuge at all, but simply the most expedient way forward, both for the author (who'd like to publish) and for the journal (if the revised manuscript is indeed much improved). Karen Shashok Granada, Spain ___________________________ We have come across this several times. Sometimes, we will simply send another rejection letter. If the manuscript has improved, we send it to the same reviewers to see if they think it has improved. If it is markedly different, we treat it as a new submission with new reviewers. After months of research, writing, and collaborating, authors are reluctant to just quietly accept a rejection. If it is a matter of audience accessibility, that is, the journal's intended audience would not benefit from reading the article, then a rejection is easier to handle. I think the same is true for faulty methodology, etc. However, if there are organization and writing issues, the rejection is much harder to handle. I have to agree with this being an innocent resubmission. All in all, it is at the editor's discretion. Caity Byrne Editorial Assistant, Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health ___________________________ I suppose this is a difficult situation, for at least 2 reasons. First, a paper is rejected for reasons and not (should I say this) arbitrarily. So we reject papers because the paper is poorly written, is considered not in line with the journal's areas of specialty, we think the readers of this journal would not be better served, or there is nothing really much that we should spend our space on. Now if the paper has been substantially improved that we think our readers may be better served then we have a problem; a problem in that we have our readers to serve and they may benefit from reading the paper. Second, we do not want to set precedence when you should be expecting that all the rejected papers have a second life and may resurface one day in another version. I would think now it is at the discretion of the editor to decide this particular case. Luckily, many authors are not as tough to resubmit a paper once rejected. But the editors can also suggest to the authors submission to another journal and if the material is good, chances of publication may be good. Adamson Muula Malawi Medical Journal ___________________________ This is an interesting issue. For me, when I reject a manuscript, it has problems (obviously) but the issue is: are these problems that can be fixed or are they "fatal flaws"? If a manuscript has a fatal flaw, I never want to see it again, and no amount of cajoling, sweet talk, or threatening will get me to change my mind. In the rejection letter, I make it clear what the fatal flaw is. In my experience, authors of "fatal flaw" manuscripts take that decision as final and do not try the "revise/resubmit even though it was rejected" ploy. Then there are rejected manuscripts with fixable problems. Why not just give them the option to revise and resubmit, rather than reject? Usually it is a case of the number of problems: poor writing, unorganized, superficial, old references, etc, that tips the scale to a rejection. But, I have had many authors who have taken the reviewers' and my comments to heart, done the work that needed to be done, and re-submitted, even with the initial rejection. In that case, I give them the courtesy of beginning the review process again (sometimes with the same reviewers, sometimes with new—each circumstance is different). I have had cases where an initially rejected manuscript does eventually get published. I can tell you, though, that what is in print is very, very different from what was originally submitted. Leslie H. Nicoll Editor-in-Chief, CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing and JHPN: The Journal of Hospice and Palliative Nursing ___________________________ My experience as a submitter to and reviewer for an august society research journal is that there are effectively 2 kinds of rejection letters, concurrent with the observation of Leslie Nicoll. One is the firm do-not-resubmit rejection letter that makes it clear the paper should not be resubmitted. In the second, a softer undercurrent leaves open, or appears to do so, the possibility of resubmission. As a reviewer I see papers that are so fraught with difficulties that merely meeting specific criteria will not suffice, but I still think there may be merit in the paper. In other words, revisions alone won't work. Again as a reviewer, I will leaves clues to this in my remarks to the authors, and make this explicit in my remarks to the editor. The effect I hope for is that the manuscript will be rejected, but "softly", that the authors will take very seriously indeed the noted deficiencies and problems, and actually will resubmit with a markedly changed, and markedly improved paper. As a submitting author who has had manuscript rejected by this same journal, I look for the same kinds of clues—not always but sometimes to be found in plain sight (for a rejection has officially to be a rejection). John R. Rodgers Department of Immunology, Baylor College of Medicine ___________________________ The previous suggestions have all been good. Let me add one more consideration, in relation to policy differing significantly at various journals. I personally have had the experience of being unequivocally rejected by a prestigious journal, only to be asked 6 months later at a meeting (after my paper was accepted elsewhere) by the very same editor, "Why didn't you resubmit your manuscript?" When I expressed surprise, I was told that it was "well known" that at this journal (presumably if you knew how to properly read between the lines) a rejection letter meant you should revise. (The editor did not explain how "real" rejection was communicated). Fortunately, since your author has the hide of a rhinoceros, you can communicate anything you want and little damage (or change in behavior) will be done. Michael Callaham ___________________________ It seems to me that there are 2 issues: asking the editor to reconsider an editorial decision and common politeness. I have had colleagues receive rejections that they have considered to be based on errors in judgment where they recontacted the editors. In those cases, they laid out an argument addressing the reviewers' and editors' points and asked that the manuscript be reconsidered. It seems to me that this is appropriate and the editor is in the position of either accepting their manuscript for reconsideration or rejecting the argument and (once more) the manuscript. Editors make mistakes. It's perfectly reasonable to state your case one more time. What strikes me in this case is that it seems as if the authors ignored the rejection and thus did not acknowledge the editorial decision. That just strikes me as rude and inappropriate. There are lots of reasons to reject manuscripts. One of them is that you've worked with a paper long enough and don't think it's worth the extra time you and your reviewers would need to put into it to move forward. A rejection isn't a revise/resubmit. I think it behooves the authors to acknowledge that before they move forward. Otherwise it's just bullying. Nancy Darling ___________________________ Nancy ... your assessment of the author's politeness quotient could not be more accurate. He is legendary. Thanks so much to all of you who have replied ... some very constructive and empathic responses! Simon Chapman ___________________________ As with other journals, this happens occasionally with our journal as well. The tack we take is that an author can resubmit an article after a rejection if he or she wishes, and there may be legitimate reasons to rebut a rejection. (I have done so 3 times in my career, and in 2 of those instances the editor reversed the decision and published the paper.) But the editor also has the right to (and probably should) simply look at the cover letter listing how the author responded to the reviewers, look at the initial reviews, and make an editorial decision without sending it out for re-review. If there were fatal flaws in the original manuscript that were not (or could not) be corrected, then a quick rejection of the resubmission within 1-2 days should send the appropriate message. William M. Tierney Co-Editor-in-Chief, Journal of General Internal Medicine ___________________________ Here's what the BMJ does, as explained at http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/advice/article_submission.shtml: Submitting An Appeal If you believe that we have rejected your manuscript wrongly, perhaps because we have misunderstood its scientific content, please submit an appeal letter. This should be as detailed as possible. If we have provided comments from external peer review and/or from a full editorial committee please respond to these, point-by-point, in your appeal letter. We may invite you to submit a revised paper if we wish to consider your appeal further, and it will be easier for us to decide what to do if you send a very detailed letter. Appeals clarifying and revising specific parts of the manuscript, for instance the analysis of original data, tend to succeed much more often than appeals against essentially editorial decisions. If the editors and/or the full editorial committee have decided that your paper is not sufficiently interesting or important for BMJ readers, there may be no point in trying to appeal. Lastly, we can consider only one appeal per manuscript. Our experience is that prolonged negotiations over rejected papers are usually unsatisfactory for both authors and editors. Trish Groves Senior Assistant Editor, BMJ [ Last edited by zhgyg on 2008-1-28 at 23:36 ] |
回复此楼» 收录本帖的淘帖专辑推荐
 科研与工作相关 | research |
» 猜你喜欢
A期刊撤稿
已经有3人回复
-
职称评审没过，求安慰
已经有34人回复
-
垃圾破二本职称评审标准
已经有17人回复
-
回收溶剂求助
已经有6人回复
-
投稿Elsevier的Neoplasia杂志，到最后选publishing options时页面空白，不能完成投稿
已经有22人回复
-
申请26博士
已经有5人回复
-
EST投稿状态问题
已经有7人回复
-
毕业后当辅导员了，天天各种学生超烦
已经有4人回复
-
求助文献
已经有3人回复
-
投稿返修后收到这样的回复，还有希望吗
已经有8人回复
padodo
至尊木虫 (职业作家)
胖嘟嘟
- 应助: 179 (高中生)
- 贵宾: 0.272
- 金币: 12660.9
- 散金: 609
- 红花: 21
- 沙发: 2
- 帖子: 3380
- 在线: 609.1小时
- 虫号: 409123
- 注册: 2007-06-21
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 环境分析化学
长见识了~~~ 
2楼2008-01-28 23:46:59
3楼2008-01-28 23:53:49
jackiemwd
荣誉版主 (知名作家)
小木虫论坛副秘书长
- 应助: 2 (幼儿园)
- 贵宾: 2.997
- 金币: 46077.7
- 散金: 230
- 红花: 32
- 沙发: 2
- 帖子: 9546
- 在线: 656.8小时
- 虫号: 97742
- 注册: 2005-11-09
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 碳素材料与超硬材料
- 管辖: 论文投稿交流
4楼2008-01-29 10:38:55
5楼2008-01-29 15:14:17